> How do you surface engaging content without also surfacing harmful / polarising / abusive content?
People's objections to twitter are rarely if ever that they have objectionable material forced upon them. The objections are that objectionable material is "surfaced" to anyone, especially the people who desire that material the most.
And the definition of that objectionable material tends to correspond to the beliefs common among people who voted for Trump, who won one election and barely lost the next i.e. the objectionable material that should be suppressed is usually the opinion of near-majorities, and virtually always very large minorities of the population. Speaking as a black person - if all black people believed the exact same thing about an issue (but nobody else did), it would mean that 12% of the US population believed it. There are no ideas currently being censored that aren't honestly believed by more than 12% of the population, so a media that can't represent them is worthless for us.
It's not a technical problem to write a politically neutral political censorship algorithm, it's a logical problem. It's like trying to build a coffee machine that doesn't use coffee. It's also a fictional problem that only external defenders of political censorship think exists: the insiders at our major social media outlets are happy to solve the problem of the administration being upset with what is said on their platforms by meeting with them weekly, reporting on what's been accomplished since last week, and getting a new list of orders for next week. There's your "neutral" algorithm.